WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

44,02,015/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. The ld.AO has scrutinized return in both the years and passed orders under section 143(3) on 31.12.2007 and 29.12.2010. Thereafter, he reopened the assessment by recording reasons and issued notice under section 148 on 15.3.2010 and 6.7.2010 in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

BHAGYALAXMI STEEL ROLLING MILL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay and admitting the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 10. Having said so, we shall now proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised before us which read as under: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on acts of the case, in sustaining addition of alleged cessation of liability of Rs.5

ARVINDKUMAR SURYANATHSINH VERMA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), NEW WARD NO. 5(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

condonation of delay. In Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil reported in 2002 253 ITR 798; 2002 125 STC 375; 2001 44 ALR 577 the apex court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: In exercising discretion ; under section

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 3. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee in statement of facts as well as grounds of appeal filed before ld. CIT(A) , stated as under:- “A. Statement of Facts 1.The Appellant is Individual and shifted to Mumbai after the death of her husband. 2. The assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHAUNAK SHAILESH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 69A of the Act. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was a delay of 44 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee filed application for condonation

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

condone delay petitions. Since the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the very same issue, that has been raised in this writ petition, the benefit granted to those petitioners must also enure to the benefit of this writ petitioner also. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.11.2019 is hereby quashed on the ground that the same is barred